Roster Depth « Thread Started on Jun 18, 2012, 1:30pm »
Heres a quick table showing the change in our roster depth since the Craft/long days...
Year
*****
****
***
**
NR
2006
0
1
19
45
39
2007
0
1
21
50
45
2008
0
0
19
52
29
2009
0
0
18
55
55
2010
0
1
25
49
30
2011
0
0
31
45
36
2012
0
0
31
44
44
Since we don't have a preseason roster for 12 yet I just removed the known greyshirts from the '12 class and added them in. These numbers don't take into account transfers.
Re: Roster Depth « Reply #3 on Jun 18, 2012, 2:25pm »
Interesting analysis. Going from 20 to 30 ***-players is an improvement but really how much? I like how Rocky is going about recruiting because he seems to have a knack for identifying "real" football players or players that have a natural instinct about the game. Nine wins this year gets us 35 + three-star guys and 10 + wins gets us 40+ three-star guys.
Re: Roster Depth « Reply #6 on Jun 18, 2012, 5:01pm »
There's grade inflation in general.
Back in 2004 when Rivals first began to assign number grades rather than just stars, some kids were rated as low as 4.9. Now the lowest rating is 5.2. I don't think that means a 5.2 is now equivalent to a 4.9 back then. Instead it appears as though anybody not thought highly enough to receive a 5.2 grade is simply "unrated" by Rivals. In other words, I think a 5.2 now is about equal to a 5.0 back then. The conclusion I draw - and I'm talking just generally - is that anybody receiving a grade of 5.5 now is a 3-star kid whereas he would have received a 5.3 rating back then and been a 2-star recruit.
The above having been said, I don't think there are any more 5-star players than there ever were and probably not all that many more 4-star recruits so there are considerably more 3-star players than there used to be and with less kids rated "NR," more 2-star recruits as well.
I should add that I think the JYP/SteveEM system is at least as valuable. That is, did any schools from AQ conferences offer a kid and, if so, which ones? Look at Jeff Overbaugh. He's given a downright bad 5.2 rating by Rivals, but he was offered by Tennessee. Why did Rivals rate him so low? Because he's a long snapper and just like kickers and punters, Rivals and every other service always gives special teams players improper low scores. So much so that I think those of us who care about this stuff should probably give every ST recruit an additional .3 points on their score in order to gauge their actual value. So I'd do the same with Lloyd Mills and Seamus McMorrow.
"America loves a winner and will not tolerate a loser" - George Patton
Joined: Jul 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 5,181 Location: Fallbrook, CA
Re: Roster Depth « Reply #7 on Jun 18, 2012, 8:49pm »
One thing confuses me about the chart in this thread. If I interpret it correctly, the Aztecs have had more than the total number of players allowed on a team several of the years listed. Not scholarship players (which is 85 at present), but total players. I checked and it appears that 105 players is the maximum, which would include scholarship players as well as walk-ons.
Re: Roster Depth « Reply #8 on Jun 18, 2012, 10:34pm »
AZWM,
That chart by Zuma took a lot of effort. Kudos to Zuma. I'm not about to challenge the info but it certainly is close to Obama's claim that he has authority to determine whoever is legal in the USA. As I understand it, you are scheduled for deportment to Nicaragua no later than July 5, 2013.
« Last Edit: Jun 19, 2012, 12:33am by sdsuaztecs »
That chart by Zuma took a lot of effort. Kudos to Zuma. I'm not about to challenge the info but it certainly is close to Obama's claim that he has authority to determine whoever is legal in the USA. As I understand it, you are scheduled for deportment to Nicaragua no later than July 5, 2013.
Actually, it's deportation, but who cares? Anyway, I've always wanted to visit Nicaragua. (Okay, that's a lie. It's Chile that I've always wanted to visit. . . seriously).
But is it possible that you interpreted my question as a criticism? That would be an incorrect interpretation. It was just a question.
Re: Roster Depth « Reply #10 on Jun 19, 2012, 9:05am »
No mater what you think of the * system this is nothing but good news. Not only do we have an increase in *** players but we have a Full roster. Also, I don't think this counts the 2 Pac 12 transfers.
God, I remember when ALL news from the Mesa was bad news.
No mater what you think of the * system this is nothing but good news. Not only do we have an increase in *** players but we have a Full roster. Also, I don't think this counts the 2 Pac 12 transfers.
A few weeks ago, I broke down our recruits for each class since 2006 according to the scholarship offers they received from schools in AQ conferences. It was as low as four in 2008, which was a half-Chuck, half-Hoke class, but almost always five or six. That was until 2011, when we had seven, and this year, when we had 13 such recruits. IMO anyway, that proves we're bumping up recruiting. With our impending move to the BE, I'm hoping for an even better class in 2013.
One thing confuses me about the chart in this thread. If I interpret it correctly, the Aztecs have had more than the total number of players allowed on a team several of the years listed. Not scholarship players (which is 85 at present), but total players. I checked and it appears that 105 players is the maximum, which would include scholarship players as well as walk-ons.
AzWm
That's what the official August roster for each year had listed.